Prev
Next

How much are you prepared to pay for civilisation?

Andrew Blyth

by Andrew Blyth

26 Mar 10:59am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Earth Hour, Electricity, Environment

32 comments

We are all too familiar with the satellite picture of North Korea in darkness at night and the horror stories of millions of people living in impoverishment. More recently I have read Barbara Demick’s, Nothing To Envy: Love, Life and Death in North Korea.

It's Earth Hour 24 hours a day in North Korea

This book is both depressing yet insightful. The journey you take while reading is one of disbelief of a state starving its people yet demanding hero worship of its leaders. The book shows too that no matter how hard a state seeks to control its people, individual spirit cannot be crushed. North Koreans inventiveness and street smarts have been tested to the limit, just in order to survive in such a dysfunctional regime. The book does, however, drive home that a functioning electricity sector is indeed the backbone of every economy.

At the weekend, Federal Minister for Energy, Hon Martin Ferguson MP, in plain speaking, said that we need to come to terms with the true cost of electricity. I couldn’t agree more and full credit to him for raising the issue.

Recent electricity price decisions have seen dramatic increases foreshadowed for consumers. Some have argued that this is a result of governments not keeping pace with the need to replace ageing infrastructure (equipment from the 1950s is still being used).

There is some truth in this but there is also the increase in demand that shows no signs of abating. We are a society that embraces new technology and most homes and offices are now more wired up than a NASA control station. This technology requires reliable power supply - 24 hours a day.

No politician likes to be associated with increasing electricity bills but there are many practical steps we can take to reduce our consumption and our bills. Water conservation measures have been effective in entering people’s consciousness. We are all too familiar with our diminishing rivers and shrinking dams and have made a conscious effort to reduce our water usage.

Three minute shower campaigns and trusted individuals advising us on water usage have all been effective measures. For example, Canberrans are provided a daily update of dam levels. Dam levels are currently at 54% capacity - not so long ago that figure was around 30%. The challenge is – are we prepared to do the same with electricity and reduce our energy waste.

Energy prices have been increasing recently due to a range of factors across the energy market. Australia’s energy ministers have agreed that price rises are expected to occur in coming years due to investments to meet the challenges of ageing infrastructure, growing demand and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy consumers typically see one bill which can be affected by price and cost changes across the entire energy chain. Across most of Australia network charges are approved by the independent Australian Energy Regulator.

The national regulator is tasked with approving pricing proposals that promote the ‘long term interest of consumers’ in efficient prices that safeguard longer-term investment, reliability and safety. Over $42 billion of capital expenditure has been approved by energy regulators to help meet these needs over the next five years. These price increases are necessary if we are to future proof our networks in order to keep the lights on and to start building a smarter energy network.

The true cost of electricity, like water, needs to be made available to assist people in making better informed choices. As the people in North Korea continue to live without heating and choose between starvation or crossing a frozen river to embrace a better life, perhaps we all could take a minute (or sixty) this Saturday night for Earth Hour to appreciate what we have and spare a thought for those who go without.

Most commented

32 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      10:12am | 26/03/10

      Two words: Nuclear power.

      Australia is sitting on one third of the world’s known reserves of uranium ore. Australia has all the technological capacity required to create the full nuclear fuel cycle, and supply all our energy needs for the next century.

      That we aren’t doing this already is a crime.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      10:42am | 26/03/10

      ...what we don’t have are nuclear technicians and scientists. We might need a generation to train them here, and that means bringing the expertise in from overseas at a tremendous cost.

      Then there is the question of where to put the waste, and I don’t think my idea of cordoning off Far North Queensland and turning it into a toxic waste dump has legs.

    • Paul Horn says:

      10:56am | 26/03/10

      Well said Eric. Mind you it will take years to assemble the necessary expertise and resources to build such a beast noting that both are severely lacking in this country and will probably not be able to be built in time to meet the ever burgeoning demand.

      Also remember when you build either new Gas or Coal fired power plants they are far more efficient than the ageing stuff we have presently serving us.  I can remember re -commissioning two old A and B units at Swanbank Power Station in Queensland in the mid 90’s. The station had previously been decommissioned in the mid 80’s after operating for more than 30 years.  Old Mitchell boilers, old Parsons turbines, what a clapped out plant that was. But some bright energy minister realised that underinvestment in the energy sector had become so desperate to meet the ever growing population explosion in SE Qld that they had no choice but to bring old plant back online.  Pathetic really.

      No one wants an ugly belching smoke stack in their back yard but they scream and shout like banshees when denied access to cheap affordable electricity. Hypocritical if you ask me. But then most idiots are totally unaware of where all that heat, light and power comes from at the simple flick of a switch. Its just like Alice living in magic land. 

      Anyway it looks as if North Korea will be our future as our Government becomes increasingly green and environmentally activist.

    • A Bob says:

      11:11am | 26/03/10

      On this we agree. It’s been a long time since Chernobyl and there are many advances in reactor design to consider. We should be getting on with it. Too much politics and not enough science.

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:23am | 26/03/10

      Exactly! There doesn’t appear to be a legitimate argument against Nuclear power that does not rely on scare mongering or that whole luddite “not in my backyard” nonsense. We have an over abundance of materials and technology yet we aren’t putting it to use, it’s embarassing, we have got to go the nuclear route at least for the short term. Perhaps like you suggested for the next 100 years until solar/wind/tidal or even fusion power become legitimate sources capable of sustaining technologically advanced societies.

    • Ellie says:

      03:42pm | 26/03/10

      Australia is making a huge amount of money selling uranium to other countries. We already have coal plants to supply electricity so I can hardly see the government looking to nuclear plants which take many years to build. I’ve got nothing against nuclear. I just can’t see the government building nuclear plants from scratch when we will have clean coal plants operating by 2020..

    • Jack from Perth says:

      03:39pm | 26/03/10

      @Zeta: Why turn FNQ into a toxic waste dump? We already have one. It’s called Adelaide.

    • Bruce says:

      03:54pm | 26/03/10

      Eric agree: Nuclear power is the way to go. However, as I understand it possibly within the next 30 - 40 years nuclear power maybe old technology. My understanding is that the US and other major powers are looking at “Helium 3” power.

    • Eric says:

      05:35pm | 26/03/10

      It’s true that we don’t have the trained experts to create a huge nuclear industry - yet. But we can train them, and build in cooperation with other countries in return for our ore. The longer we take to get started, the longer it will take for us to get there.

      And it’s about more than just nuclear power. If we developed our own enrichment facilities, we could sell nuclear fuel instead of just raw ore - with a greater gain in exports and local employment.

    • Toby says:

      06:36pm | 26/03/10

      Nuclear power is only a part of the solution in a very complex puzzle.  Nuclear power plants are typically very expensive and have very long lead time (8 – 12 years to build). 

      Coal is the world most abundant energy reserve and Australia has plenty, it is cheap, safe, and easy to transport.  Coal should also form a part of the solution and more effort should go into finding economically viable solutions for CCS power stations and coal gasification.

    • Paul says:

      08:55am | 27/03/10

      Ignorance is a crime too Eric.

      The fact is we don’t even have the technical know how or scientific practices. Should we continue with with she’ll be right attitude Eric? See link:

      http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/filmmaker-david-bradbury-red-dust-dump-originating-at-woomera-is-grave-concern-for-public-health/

      Obama is ramping up his Nuclear Weapons program again breaking treaties - how long before this triggers another arms race or other countries to arm up? You are probably are not old enough to remember the p*ssing contest that was the Cold War nuclear arms race Eric… But you are old enough to research what is happening to old nuclear weapons and their pollution (Russia has even “lost” or can’t account for many weapons - or they don’t have the resources to clean up the radioactive leftover mess from the Cold War including nuclear power plants from subs etc.)

      We don’t need to be associated with that madness or economic stupidity and false illusion.

    • Eric says:

      11:09am | 27/03/10

      Paul, you are full of ignorance.

      David Bradbury is a filmmaker with a political agenda. He is not a scientist of any sort.

      I am old enough to remember the Cold War. And I am modern enough to know that Obama is currently trying to reduce US nuclear weapons by 30%, contrary to your nonsense.

    • Marcus says:

      09:37pm | 27/03/10

      “Anyway it looks as if North Korea will be our future as our Government becomes increasingly green and environmentally activist.”

      No. This is what is going to happen if we keep using resources that we don’t have.

    • DJ says:

      10:13am | 26/03/10

      All I can think of is: ‘Finish your dinner, there are starving kids in Africa’

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      10:23am | 26/03/10

      Indeed we should spend an hour sitting in the dark to remind ourselves of what an absolute debacle Rudd’s ETS would have been and how the policies advocated by the Greens will switch the lights out for good.

      Reply

    • loxy says:

      11:05am | 26/03/10

      I accept that the cost of electricity, like everything else, is going up. However your article fails to make the point that it’s not necessary how much people are prepared to pay, it’s how much they can pay. There was a recent article in the news that talked about the new ‘electricity poverty’ which referred to the growing number of people having their electricity cut off due to not being able to afford the bills. This problem is only going to get worse and it is totally unacceptable in a country like Australia that we would have people not able to afford electricity.

      It’s time for Plan B, put the money into nuclear power, solar power etc instead of trying to upgrade the current system to a point in the near future where only the rich can afford it!

      Reply

    • Billie says:

      12:35pm | 26/03/10

      Yes, it is unacceptable that those who have tried to reduce their electricity costs as much as possible have their power cut off because they can’t pay the bill. What is also unacceptable is those who cry poor but have at least one TV blaring at all hours, live in airconditioning in all seasons so they can wear tshirts in winter, take excessively long and hot showers, and leave all the lights on. Admittedly a minority, but they certainly don’t get my sympathy. But living within one’s means as much as possible is an unfashionable concept these days.

    • Joe from Brisbane says:

      11:06am | 26/03/10

      If we had the same green minded Labor governments in power in the 1920’s as we have today they would have similarly said the country was at capacity and would have point blank refused to build the infrastructure for Australia’s future. Its just that Labor have turned green over the last 20 years and now we are seeing the consequences of a lack of infrastructure. Simply refusing to build what is required to appease gaia (while Rudd ships in record numbers of immigrants).

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:28am | 26/03/10

      Build nuclear power plants and nationalize the power grids since the states and the private energy suppliers don’t give a stuff about maintaining them.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      12:19pm | 26/03/10

      @ Zeta - you are spot on about the lack of technical know how and the lead times to build the skill base - in a world where these skills are in demand and therefore expensive.

      It would seem a good idea to encourage everyone who has enrolled to study environmental science to switch over and study nuclear science though this does overlook the fact that nuclear physics is actually hard and requires significantly more intellect than feelgood environmental puffery.

      Oh and I wouldn’t give up on the NQ idea.  I reckon we could surreptitiously dump nuclear waste in the roadside garbage bins of Townsville and the locals would struggle to pin the mutations on the nuclear waste.

      Reply

    • WKH says:

      12:16pm | 26/03/10

      Ah yes, North Korea at night. A not so shining example of what the Greens would like to see as standard all over the rest of the developed world. Wouldn’t the sky be clear? Nuclear is the only way to go… Won’t be too long before you see numerous pensioners before the courts for growing and selling dope just to support their power habit..

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      01:06pm | 26/03/10

      You might be onto something there. Legalise drugs on the condition we go nuclear.

    • PaulW says:

      12:36pm | 26/03/10

      Why not celebrate our achivements that have only been accomplished with use use of electricity instead of sitting in the dark for an hour

      http://www.conservative.org.au/human-achievement-hour.html

      If we are not building any new power stations how are we going to handle the increase in population and therefore increased consumption that will bring.

      Spend the money but build new stations, don’t just refurbish the old ones.  Start using Nuclear power, but don’t allow us to go backwards yet still force us to pay way too much for that privilege.

      Reply

    • Marcus says:

      09:35pm | 27/03/10

      Don’t allow us to go backwards?
      Nuclear is a big step backwards.

    • A Bob says:

      01:15pm | 26/03/10

      On the subject of nuclear waste, can someone explain why carbon sequestration is OK but storing radioactive waste isn’t? I mean, if CO2 is so bad then surely its a big risk to bottle it and then dump it in a big hole in the ocean? If it all leaks out does the earth turn into a sauna overnight?

      How does Labor maintain it’s anit-nuke stance but support this? I call BS.

      Reply

    • Andrew Goff says:

      03:41am | 29/03/10

      Happy to explain that one:

      A Carbon “spill” of a megaton would increase the emissions for a year by less than 0.00000001% and have no significant long-term impact on the local environment (excusing any causal explosions!)

      A “spill” of a megaton of depleted Uranium would wipe out life as we know it on earth*. Chernobyl, as a comparison point, was less than 2 kilotons.

      Of course, to our knowledge there has never been a contaminant spill of any volume from any storage facility - I am not opposed to n-power and I don’t mind if they build the facility underneath my apartment (except for the truck noise).

      I hope that explains the difference to you.

      *NB. This may be dependent on weather. A case has been made that the total devastation may be limited to only one hemisphere due to weather patterns. This is no longer generally accepted, but the impact would likely be limited to some degree.

    • A Bob says:

      09:57am | 29/03/10

      Thanks, Andrew.

      It raises the question though, that if the CO2 from power stations is such a drop in the bucket, why bother with it at all? Instead of buring even more coal to power the liquification of CO2 and depleting a non-renewable resource even faster, why not just build more efficient power stations and tackle other big CO2 emiters instead?

    • Front Row says:

      05:44pm | 26/03/10

      It’s beyond me why confining refined nuclear waste in stainless steel three thousand feet under limestone is not seen as a far better bet than pumping shit-loads of carbon into the atmosphere.
      What am I missing? Anyone?

      Reply

    • John Allen says:

      12:28am | 27/03/10

      Nuclear, nuclear, and nuclear. Yes please, and quickly.
      But there is something else pretty exciting, which works.
      (By that I mean that Solar and Wind are Greenie’s wet-dreams).

      This new one is Waste to Energy. 1. Gets rid of rubbish. 2. Makes energy.

      They take all, that’s ALL, manner of rubbish - animal, mineral, vegetable, tyres, batteries, E-waste - and heat it, freeze it, pulverize it, etc, and Hydrogen and pure CO2 come out the other end.

      The Hydrogen drives turbines which makes Electricity.  Enough for a city.
      Industry (greenhouses etc) buys the pure CO2.

      And, and, NO emmissions. It’s Win Win!
      One largish plant (plant, admin. parking) takes up the size of a footie field (they can even go underground) right near a city.

      So you do not have to have Oh so expensive Transmission Carrying cables getting the power to where it is needed ( as with solar and wind ).
      “Baby when the sun don’t shine,  and Baby when the Wind don’t blow ...”

      You are going to hear a lot more about his new technology very soon.
      Turst me.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      09:17am | 27/03/10

      We have a sun up in the Sky, why don’t we start wiring houses for solar power. Maybe the governments could make an incentive scheme for that. Possibly the current house wiring would not have to be changed but a special switching arrangement put in the power boxes to switch from the power grid to the solar grid when necessary. The technology is there to do it and the electricians can use step up transformers to convert to 240v. Even if solar could provide one half of a houses needs then it would reduce the drain on the electricity grid. To me Nuclear is dangerous but Solar is common sense. The conversion of houses may be very straight forward in my view but they would have to consult with electrical engineers regarding how it could be done at a reasonable price if at all. Solar energy has been around for quite a while now, from memory there is the Rainbow Power Company in Nimbin, NSW. They have been pioneers in the promotion of solar power since the 70s or so. Go Solar I say,a way to go for the future.

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      11:09am | 27/03/10

      Timmo, I’m surprised you don’t know that we already have rebates for installing solar panels as well as smart meters that can feed excess power back into the grid. Are you having a go at us?

      Solar panels are at a break-even point as far as viability is concerned. The technology is much improved but still has a way to go.

      Plus, it can’t generate base-load power. It will always be a supplementary system for domestic use. It can’t support heavy industry that runs 24x7. Coal/gas and nuclear are the only 2 current technologies that can do that. The waste energy thing above sounds promising though.

      I read a story a few days ago that Bill Gates was going to fund the building of a new type of reactor along with Toshiba. It was unverified but I hope it’s true. It reprocesses its own waste to have a longer lifespan and very low waste potential.

      And then there is nuclear fusion, one of the fuels is helium 3 as stated above. They’ve been trying to get this to work for 50 years. It’s the holy grail of mass energy production.

    • Timmo says:

      02:20am | 28/03/10

      Hello there Bob, Yes , well i was aware of the solar rebate and the smart meters and I was aware that these systems at the moment could only supply a small amount of the needs for house demands. Nuclear seems to me to be unstable as per what we saw with places such as chernobyl many years ago and of course there is the long live of radiation and getting rid of the waste as well. The story you read re Bill Gates sounds interesting, in particular how it will get rid of it’‘s own waste and also the nuclear fusion. I am not an expert in regard to this of course and you seem to have quite good knowledge and are more informed than I am. But it was just food for thought. These new technologies will eventually come through I am sure and this will be good. Lets hope that if it is cheaper to produce that the savings, if any, will be passed on to consumers. Thanks for your reply.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter